Have the BBBoC rules changed?

[leejonesjnr]

When Michael Page was preparing to box his debut he made a lot of noise about boxing and competing in MMA simultaneously.
I assumed at the time that this was just talk as all license holders know that if you box as a professional then you are not permitted to compete or be involved in MMA, kickboxing, unlicensed boxing or any other combat sport.
Whilst it does go on, (off the top of my head one WBA belt holder, one area champion, four other boxers, three trainers and a promotor) it shouldn't as applicants know the rules that they agree to abide by and make the choice to become license holders. I have always believed that if you don't agree, don't be a license holder rather than try to get away with it.
In the case of Michael Page there is no 'fingers crossed nobody notices' approach, he is on televised MMA promotions with Bellator. Presumably the rules must have changed as there is no reason to make a special exception?

[cocobongo]

I am not sure. I know actually being a boxer maybe different. I have recently got my BBBOC MC License, I was told in my hearing, I could have no involvement in any White Collar, BIBA, MBC or Unlicensed Boxing. They did say I could continue with the Thai Boxing shows I do and any MMA events would be okay? Not sure if its a different rules for fighters though?

[dookus]

Maybe if they were to extend the ban to all combat sports they would be inviting a lawsuit for restraint of trade.

[leejonesjnr]

Maybe if they were to extend the ban to all combat sports they would be inviting a lawsuit for restraint of trade.

Nope. It’s a choice to abide by the terms of the license and the rule about other combat sports in the case of boxers is to protect the boxer and enforce suspensions in the event of stoppages. The vast majority of other combat sports in the U.K. are not very professionally run and even if they were have no obligation to inform the BBBoC of knockouts etc.
Certainly until recently the rule was that no other combat sports were allowed.

[Greg Houston]

I was wondering about this myself.

I suppose one way round could have been to give up the licence, have the MMA fight then re-apply to the board. That way you would have to get fresh medicals, so any issues from having competed elsewhere should be picked up.

I don't know if they would allow that though.

[dookus]

Maybe if they were to extend the ban to all combat sports they would be inviting a lawsuit for restraint of trade.

Nope. It’s a choice to abide by the terms of the license and the rule about other combat sports in the case of boxers is to protect the boxer and enforce suspensions in the event of stoppages. The vast majority of other combat sports in the U.K. are not very professionally run and even if they were have no obligation to inform the BBBoC of knockouts etc.
Certainly until recently the rule was that no other combat sports were allowed.

Not all contract terms are enforceable (which is essentially what a rule in a license amounts to). Terms can be held unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade. The BBBC is the "main" body for professional boxing, so in principle, were they to try to enforce such a rule, a boxer could claim the rule is unenforceable (and sue for damages were the BBBC to take their licence away) as the effect of the clause would be to prevent the boxer legitimately plying their trade elsewhere.

Whether such a claim would work in practice I don't know. I know it has been threatened before. I don't know if that drove the rule change or just the increasing number of cross-discipline fighters.

[leejonesjnr]

Maybe if they were to extend the ban to all combat sports they would be inviting a lawsuit for restraint of trade.

Nope. It’s a choice to abide by the terms of the license and the rule about other combat sports in the case of boxers is to protect the boxer and enforce suspensions in the event of stoppages. The vast majority of other combat sports in the U.K. are not very professionally run and even if they were have no obligation to inform the BBBoC of knockouts etc.
Certainly until recently the rule was that no other combat sports were allowed.

Not all contract terms are enforceable (which is essentially what a rule in a license amounts to). Terms can be held unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade. The BBBC is the "main" body for professional boxing, so in principle, were they to try to enforce such a rule, a boxer could claim the rule is unenforceable (and sue for damages were the BBBC to take their licence away) as the effect of the clause would be to prevent the boxer legitimately plying their trade elsewhere.

Whether such a claim would work in practice I don't know. I know it has been threatened before.

A boxing license isn’t a ‘right’. The BBBoC can withdraw a license at any time or refuse to renew without giving a reason. There has been a decision made to allow this, which, without a rule change seems very strange.

[dookus]

Nope. It’s a choice to abide by the terms of the license and the rule about other combat sports in the case of boxers is to protect the boxer and enforce suspensions in the event of stoppages. The vast majority of other combat sports in the U.K. are not very professionally run and even if they were have no obligation to inform the BBBoC of knockouts etc.
Certainly until recently the rule was that no other combat sports were allowed.

Not all contract terms are enforceable (which is essentially what a rule in a license amounts to). Terms can be held unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade. The BBBC is the "main" body for professional boxing, so in principle, were they to try to enforce such a rule, a boxer could claim the rule is unenforceable (and sue for damages were the BBBC to take their licence away) as the effect of the clause would be to prevent the boxer legitimately plying their trade elsewhere.

Whether such a claim would work in practice I don't know. I know it has been threatened before.

A boxing license isn’t a ‘right’. The BBBoC can withdraw a license at any time or refuse to renew without giving a reason. There has been a decision made to allow this, which, without a rule change seems very strange.

Not quite. Effectively the licensing arrangement is a contract - boxer pays Board and a cut of his purses, in return BBBC license his fights. Each party has rights and obligations under the contract.

The BBBC have an appeals process which the Baker v BBBC case determined is a form of arbitration - which allows little room for appeal. That doesn't mean however the BBBC has absolute discretion and the Courts can't get involved. If a decision was improperly made by the BBBC, the Courts may (in some limited circumstances) be entitled to overturn it and, for example, order a license to be restored. It seems from the Baker case, though, those circumstances are very narrow. So in practice a boxer would struggle to have the rules overturned by a Court, though it's not impossible.

[leejonesjnr]

Not all contract terms are enforceable (which is essentially what a rule in a license amounts to). Terms can be held unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade. The BBBC is the "main" body for professional boxing, so in principle, were they to try to enforce such a rule, a boxer could claim the rule is unenforceable (and sue for damages were the BBBC to take their licence away) as the effect of the clause would be to prevent the boxer legitimately plying their trade elsewhere.

Whether such a claim would work in practice I don't know. I know it has been threatened before.

A boxing license isn’t a ‘right’. The BBBoC can withdraw a license at any time or refuse to renew without giving a reason. There has been a decision made to allow this, which, without a rule change seems very strange.

Not quite. Effectively the licensing arrangement is a contract - boxer pays Board and a cut of his purses, in return BBBC license his fights. Each party has rights and obligations under the contract.

The BBBC have an appeals process which the Baker v BBBC case determined is a form of arbitration - which allows little room for appeal. That doesn't mean however the BBBC has absolute discretion and the Courts can't get involved. If a decision was improperly made by the BBBC, the Courts may (in some limited circumstances) be entitled to overturn it and, for example, order a license to be restored. It seems from the Baker case, though, those circumstances are very narrow. So in practice a boxer would struggle to have the rules overturned by a Court, though it's not impossible.

When you don’t know something, don’t make it up.
The BBBoC do not receive any of a boxers purse.

[Coco]

The bbboc dont take a cut of purses but there is a licensing fee to pay for all license holders, i dont know if they get anythimg from big figjts

[dookus]

A boxing license isn’t a ‘right’. The BBBoC can withdraw a license at any time or refuse to renew without giving a reason. There has been a decision made to allow this, which, without a rule change seems very strange.

Not quite. Effectively the licensing arrangement is a contract - boxer pays Board and a cut of his purses, in return BBBC license his fights. Each party has rights and obligations under the contract.

The BBBC have an appeals process which the Baker v BBBC case determined is a form of arbitration - which allows little room for appeal. That doesn't mean however the BBBC has absolute discretion and the Courts can't get involved. If a decision was improperly made by the BBBC, the Courts may (in some limited circumstances) be entitled to overturn it and, for example, order a license to be restored. It seems from the Baker case, though, those circumstances are very narrow. So in practice a boxer would struggle to have the rules overturned by a Court, though it's not impossible.

When you don’t know something, don’t make it up.
The BBBoC do not receive any of a boxers purse.

The contractual nature of the relationship between a BBBC license holder and the BBBC is well-established in English law. There are a number of cases on record besides Baker v BBBC that accept that principle.

Obviously the detail I read - that they take some of a purse - appears to be incorrect - I'm not a licensee nor involved in the sport. But unless they are doing it for free (which they are not), there is clearly a contractual relationship.

Edit: Coco - thank you for clarifying - boxer pays a license fee. BBBC grants a license in return.

[The Insider]

Not quite. Effectively the licensing arrangement is a contract - boxer pays Board and a cut of his purses, in return BBBC license his fights. Each party has rights and obligations under the contract.

The BBBC have an appeals process which the Baker v BBBC case determined is a form of arbitration - which allows little room for appeal. That doesn't mean however the BBBC has absolute discretion and the Courts can't get involved. If a decision was improperly made by the BBBC, the Courts may (in some limited circumstances) be entitled to overturn it and, for example, order a license to be restored. It seems from the Baker case, though, those circumstances are very narrow. So in practice a boxer would struggle to have the rules overturned by a Court, though it's not impossible.

When you don’t know something, don’t make it up.
The BBBoC do not receive any of a boxers purse.

The contractual nature of the relationship between a BBBC license holder and the BBBC is well-established in English law. There are a number of cases on record besides Baker v BBBC that accept that principle.

Obviously the detail I read - that they take some of a purse - appears to be incorrect - I'm not a licensee nor involved in the sport. But unless they are doing it for free (which they are not), there is clearly a contractual relationship.

Edit: Coco - thank you for clarifying - boxer pays a license fee. BBBC grants a license in return.

Promoters also pay Board tax per show on a sliding scale basis. In some circumstances Board tax can be waived.